If a socialist won't support a socialist, what's the point of being a socialist? Oh, that's right, it becomes a religious war of purity to the socialist cause. Just another religion believing in a certain kind of heaven that persists in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Coming from the "angry white guy " angle, I've been commenting at work about the similarity between Trump and Sanders.

Kevin Williamson in an NR piece today hits a deeper, more interesting note (and violates Godwin's Law at it)

there is a large overlap between those who put immigration restriction at the center of their agenda and those who oppose free trade, and they share the assumption that economic interactions with foreigners absent government guidance toward the “national interest” is necessarily destructive.

I have come to the conclusion that the word "socialist" has been championed and attacked over the decades by people of so many different ideological dispositions that its definition has been stretched and contorted beyond any meaningful sense. Bernie Sanders may call himself a socialist, and the British Labor party may nominally be socialist, but neither of these are really socialist in any meaningful way. And neither are the Nordic countries for that matter. Sanders advocates a mixed economy with a high degree of regulation. Every major candidate for either party also advocates a mixed economy with varying degrees of regulation. I'm not even sure Rand Paul has the courage of his convictions to advocate a laissez faire free market system. So we are basically in a situation of, "we know what you are, we're just negotiating price." So are we saying that a certain amount of economic regulation is not socialist but up to a certain point, it becomes socialist? Even the so called flat "fair tax" includes a mechanism for making it progressive. At its core, socialism is about abolishing private property in favor of collective ownership. That would truly be a radical economic proposal (and a massively stupid one, in my opinion), but Sanders is not advocating that.

"So, what you are saying (gasp!) is that they are all national socialists?"

No, actually I'm saying just the opposite. Milton Friedman used to tell a story about Ludwig von Mises, who, at a meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society, became frustrated and shouted, "You're all a bunch of socialists!"

I found the NR piece by Williamson to be less than clear. At one point he writes "It is not the case, as some libertarians suggest, that free trade implies free immigration, that laissez-faire implies open borders; that is a mistake made by those who neglect the fact that human beings have economic value but are not economic goods."And a little later he writes: ". . . there isn’t a legitimate national interest in having boffins in Washington stand between a fellow in Pittsburgh who wants to buy a pair of sneakers and a guy in Mindanao who wants to sell them to him."The relationship between the seller in Mindanao and the buyer in Pittsburgh is only economic.

Every telephone pole in every college town is plastered with handmade flyers, many of them spouting vague left-wing political slogans. They are invariably crudely worded and crudely designed; so maladroit that they can't be product of students, who know at least enough tech to design a flyer. My theory is that these pathetic handbills are the product of that former student underclass who spend their lives clinging to the periphery of the university that once they attended. They tend to be "graduate students on hiatus," or they have doctorates in subjects that nobody gives a fig about. Althouse knows the type. When not attending or organizing meetings and protests that are organized and attended by the same people time after time, they tend to work at bookstores or co-op organic produce markets. The women dress thirty years too young, and the men have what remains of their hair braided into gray ponytails. Undoubtedly Madison is full of them. They probably made up the better part of that seemingly interminable "occupation" of the State Capitol lobby some years back. The reader who forwarded that picture knows the type as well, I presume.

J. Farmer said...I have come to the conclusion that the word "socialist" has been championed and attacked over the decades by people of so many different ideological dispositions that its definition has been stretched and contorted beyond any meaningful sense. Bernie Sanders may call himself a socialist, and the British Labor party may nominally be socialist, but neither of these are really socialist in any meaningful way. And neither are the Nordic countries for that matter. Sanders advocates a mixed economy with a high degree of regulation. Every major candidate for either party also advocates a mixed economy with varying degrees of regulation. I'm not even sure Rand Paul has the courage of his convictions to advocate a laissez faire free market system. So we are basically in a situation of, "we know what you are, we're just negotiating price." So are we saying that a certain amount of economic regulation is not socialist but up to a certain point, it becomes socialist? Even the so called flat "fair tax" includes a mechanism for making it progressive. At its core, socialism is about abolishing private property in favor of collective ownership. That would truly be a radical economic proposal (and a massively stupid one, in my opinion), but Sanders is not advocating that.

8/23/15, 2:42 PMBlogger AReasonableMan said...J. Farmer said...Every major candidate for either party also advocates a mixed economy with varying degrees of regulation

So, what you are saying (gasp!) is that they are all national socialists? Shiver me timbers.

8/23/15, 2:48 PMBlogger J. Farmer said...@AReasonableMan:

"So, what you are saying (gasp!) is that they are all national socialists?"

No, actually I'm saying just the opposite. Milton Friedman used to tell a story about Ludwig von Mises, who, at a meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society, became frustrated and shouted, "You're all a bunch of socialists!"

Rusty, struggling with the concept of humor, perhaps because once again he is the butt of the joke. Honest to God, I try to respect his 'thoughts' on national socialism, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

AReasonableMan unreasonably wrote:"Yeah, I hate those fuckers with principles too."But of course Scott did not write that he hated the Libertarian Party, but that the Libertarian Party drove him crazy. Did you ever write a response to a comment that made sense, ARM?

Blogger Quaestor said...Every telephone pole in every college town is plastered with handmade flyers, many of them spouting vague left-wing political slogans. They are invariably crudely worded and crudely designed; so maladroit that they can't be product of students, who know at least enough tech to design a flyer. My theory is that these pathetic handbills are the product of that former student underclass who spend their lives clinging to the periphery of the university that once they attended. They tend to be "graduate students on hiatus," or they have doctorates in subjects that nobody gives a fig about. Althouse knows the type. When not attending or organizing meetings and protests that are organized and attended by the same people time after time, they tend to work at bookstores or co-op organic produce markets. The women dress thirty years too young, and the men have what remains of their hair braided into gray ponytails. Undoubtedly Madison is full of them. They probably made up the better part of that seemingly interminable "occupation" of the State Capitol lobby some years back. The reader who forwarded that picture knows the type as well, I presume.

Yes Quaestor, Madison is chock full of these sorts of lefties, always ready to protest the latest topic of rage, with their artwork and signage, able to attend on a moment's notice.

Rusty, struggling with the concept of humor, perhaps because once again he is the butt of the joke. Honest to God, I try to respect his 'thoughts' on national socialism, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

At least I'm not sruggling with the concept of reason. But keep going I find your concepts of social democracy compelling and I want to hear more.